The undisputed fact which is confirmed by the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Porus Kaka is that, no e-mail, correspondence, bill or any other documents or evidence pertaining to the impugned assessment year 2003-04 has been furnished or filed before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings despite requests to do so. Shri Porus Kaka on this undisputed fact wants us to rely on the copy of the e-mail correspondence of 27-10-1997 of one Ms. Sonali Surajhita. For ready reference, the copy of the e-mail which is so heavily relied upon by Shri Porus Kaka is extracted hereinbelow:
We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue for determination in this case is whether the reimbursable expenditure incurred by the appellant is chargeable to service tax or not. On perusal of the returns it appears that they had indicated this amount against the column marked as “amount billed for exempted services other than export”. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been taking this stand before the lower authorities that the amounts are reimbursable expenses. It was the claim of the appellant that they had received
The controversy squarely involves interpretation and, construction of the words “manufacture” and, “production” . The word `manufacture’ was not defined under the Act, uptill the insertion of section 2(29BA) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009, which reads as under:-
After careful consideration of1 above provisions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the stand of the Revenue. As noted above actual cost should ordinarily mean real cost or real worth of assets. If it is not market value, then what is it? Mechanism to take W.D.V as provided in Explanation 2 to Section 43(6)(c) is not available in Explanation 3 o auction 43(1). Further, assets whose actual cost is to be determined under Explanation 3 are second hand and it is always difficult to find actual cost or value of such assets as compared to new assets. In the case of transf
(i) Mere identification of donor and showing movements of gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift, (ii) Since the claim of the gift is made by the assessee, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to such a gift. The assessee has to prove that the money has actually been received as a gift from donor,
As per the lease agreement, the assessee agreed to create a laase in favour of the tenant m respect of the premises, which is part of the building known as ‘The Forum’. The tenant as well as its bonafide visitors, guests, customers, clients, employees have a right of ingress to and egress from the premises by use of entrances, landings, passenger elevators, service elevators, escalators etc.
In respect of shares acquired under stock option scheme, the difference between the price of shares at the time of exercise of option and the predetermined price is liable to tax as perquisite under s. 17(2)(iii) up to 31st March, 2000.
In the present case the assessee had taken loans from the bank on which the interest was paid and as a security for those loans, FDRs in question were kept with the bank and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the netting of interest for the interest income and expenses thereto. This is also categorically answered in Shri Ram Honda (supra). The Court was of the opinion that even in a case where the exporter is required to mandatorily keep monies in fixed deposit, in order to avail credit facility for the export business, and interest earned on fixed deposits for the purpose of availing of credit facilities from the bank, it was held that the interest income has to be treated as “income from other sources” and not business income as it does not have an immediate nexus with the export business.
Assessing Officer has not made out any case for disallowing even a part of deduction allowable under Section 80IA. Once any condition laid down under Sub Section 10 of Section 80IA are not satisfied that Sub Section cannot be invoked and therefore no disallowance of deduction under that section can be made.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for bad debts of Rs.38,20,417/- in respect of the money lending business which was closed down during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in 1998-99, without following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation and contrary to the provisions of Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Merely because the money lending business was subsequently discontinued, that is in the subsequent accounting year relating to the relevant assessment year, it cannot be held that the assessee was disentitled to claim such a deduction though such claim as bad debt was, as a matter of fact, not in dispute.
